/lit/ - Literature

>shit im an atheist i have no morals power is everything i must kill someone that's ultimate power!
>dude it's like... bad to kill people
>oh no what about the cops oh no i feel bad about myself
>wow this prostitute is so unlike other girls
>wtf i got caught and sent to die in a penal colony
>at least this prostitute is here with me
>i change my mind and im totally redeemed now
holy fuck. this book is literally God's NOT Dead (the movie)

herbs

>>20848134
You're stinking Lizaveta

>>20848177
H-hot...
>>20848168
I can reduce literally any book to dumb statements and make it look bad. Good for you I guess, you can do that too.

>>20848134
not true! he is literally ME

>>20848134
Why did Raskolnikov have to suffer after repenting?
I thought that in Orthodoxy once you sincerely repent then you are forgiven. There is no need to further punish yourself.

I've come to interpret the book as a pro-collectivism/anti-individualism treaty were the punishment serves as a way to reform the individual into a member of a group.
Although, I don't know enough about Russian history to validate my theory.

>Raskolnikov
>is a rascal
Dostoevsky was a hack.

>>20848634
The moment he repents the punishments ends.
Jail is secondary, his punishment is internal, the pain he feels in his soul.
When he let's it out at the end of the book he becomes free.
He is still in jail but his punishment ended.

>>20848710
i know it might've been a great story in the late 19th century but today it's just the 5 stages of grief and in general Dostoevsky's moralism is so fake and disgusting

fun fact, he didn't fight against nihilists but Nihilists. it was an anti-government movement in Russia. Dostoevsky was a shameless stooge of the regime

>>20848634
>I've come to interpret the book as a pro-collectivism/anti-individualism
From Dostoevskij, of all people?

>>20848721
>Dostoevsky was a shameless stooge of the regime
He was almost executed for socialist propaganda

>>20848710
Just to serve as a contrast to make a point it makes sense.

>>20848737
I mean, Raskolnikov is a radical individualist and in the end he willingly submits to society's rules, even if that means going to a jail in Siberia, and he is reformed by it.

>>20848746
i'm talking about the dostoevsky who wrote all the books

>>20848134
that's not a cool statement, raskolnikov is a retarded loser

>>20848721
>fun fact, he didn't fight against nihilists but Nihilists. it was an anti-government movement in Russia. Dostoevsky was a shameless stooge of the regime
That is what I came to think even without knowing the full story, that is was a pro-government, pro-consensus propaganda, although still masterfully presented.

>>20848791
It wasn't meant to be a cool statement.

>>20848804
very well

>>20848790
Have you not heard about the death of the author?
There is no author, only text.
What does the text tell you?
You may use one of the following hermeneutics: feminist, queer or marxist.

>>20848815
>Have you not heard about the death of the author?
have you not heard of critical theory?
this guy sums it up well:
>>20848796

>>20848790
Me too, you absolute ignoramus
Read Dosto's letters to his brother, maybe.

>>20848412
>>20848134
None of us is Rasolnikov because we don't have a Sonechka that loves us.

>>20848873
I'm raskolnikov but not at the end of the book, I'm raskolnikov when he was still delusional.

>>20848840
i'm not an "absolute ignoramus" just because I didn't read his letters, to his brother. why would I waste my time like that?

what i do know is that he was happiest toward the end of his life when he received several accolades and acknowledgement by the Tsar who was the son of the Tsar who mocked him to his core with that fake execution and for which he was supposedly so scarred. he was always too pussy to truly fight the power ever since then and was a pathetic moralist whose real function was simply propagandist, it was politically meaningless drivel about nothing with no consequence but reinforcement of the (more liberal than his predecessor) Tsar's regime

and again, he was not fighting against nihilism but against the Nihilists, and it was at a time that the Tsar was substantially critiqued for merely pretending to care about the lay people and really just screwing them double over once they nominally stopped being "serfs"

>>20848948
If you have read crime and punishment, how can you say he didn't despise nihilism? It's a theme in the book, and goes beyond mentioning them.
The protagonism can't find meaning in life in an increasingless meaningless "nihilist" society and ends up in an extreme position, clings to the idea of a "great man" to give himself meaning.
He is not this "great man" he dreamed about, so he gets BTFO, but the reason he ends up in the situation he ends up in is because of nihilism, not Nihilists.

>>20848973
you're looking at culture extremely superficially, please stop being such a mutt

>>20848983
Okay, so what is your interpretation of how Raskolnikov ends up where he ends up?
Oh right it's just "muh propaganda" or something.

>>20848948
>he was always too pussy to truly fight the power
I feel like you haven't read all of Dostoevsky's works
He felt that fighting the power was still out of line with living a happy life. His ideal philosophy presented in Zosima chapters of Brothers Karamazov is more one of peace and universal love than radical ideals (which he covered more in Demons but I've yet to read that one)

Also, thanks for giving me another trip to filter out, faggot.

>>20848989
you have to understand that the Russian Orthodox Church has been infiltrated by the Russian regime since at least Ivan the Terrible and his Okhrana, if not Ivan III. The church, and vodka, have been used/produced by the Russian regime to sedate the serfs/the "people" into submission for hundreds of years. It's in this way that it's a propagandist work and indeed Dostoevsky is the most masterful agent for the regime since he toes the line 100% and never goes either too hard or too soft in his Machiavellian manipulation of normal people to give in to the elite, even though he himself wasn't part of one for most of his life. He coped, pretended to be a moral person, someone who preaches sermons and who you could trust, but all his life what he really wanted was to be part of the elite, and he ended up succeeding. He is basically 100% Machiavelli the person, except practicing the Machiavellian craft itself even in his personal oeuvre, thus being dishonest even to the reader, but never to the elite.

>>20849043
Ok, you haven't answered my question, since you haven't mentioned nor engaged with the book's content.
As it stands yours is just a schizo babble.

>>20849069
>cultural studies, theories and criticism is schizo babble

>>20849115
What criticism? You haven't addressed anything in the book, you criticized him as a person and haven't even proven anything about your theories.
You still are trying to avoid my question about how Raskolnikov ended up in a dark place (it's nihilism btw)

>>20848168
I guarantee that the author of this post is under 24 years of age.
>>20848704
what until you read Demons. There is a character named Andrei Nihilistikov.